Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 August 2

2 August 2020

Emmanuel Eni – The speedy deletion is overturned. The article still needs work and anyone is free to take it to AfD. Hut 8.5 08:58, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Emmanuel Eni (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This is a longer existing article that was speed-deleted in a sleepless? night. I agree that the article is not perfect, but my hope was and would be that someone else is improving language. PeterBraun74 (talk) 06:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC) Willkommen bei en.wiki! Hier kannst du im "draft-space" arbeiten, wenn dein Englisch nicht Perfekt sei. Draftify to allow this user to improve and resubmit at AfC in due course.—S Marshall T/C 10:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC) List at AfD. A long term user would like to discuss it. Long term users who have never used draftspace should not be forced to use draftspace. The cashed article had references. The topic suffers systematic bias against for to counts: (1) Nigerian; (2) creative arts. I think it is really a sourcing and notability question well suited for an AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC) I have done a temp undekete to allow non-0admins to see the article as it was. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC) This was deleted as a G11 (promotional). I don't think it qualified for a G11 speedy, and so I would overturn the speedy deletion. But it was a BLP containing uncited direct and indirect quotes, and significant uncited statements, and cites to unreliable sources such as aNSWERS.COM. If restored, it should either be draftified to allow proper sourcing, or else cut down to a stub, and statements can be added back with proper sources. Of course an AfD could be started during that process, if any editor chooses to do so and goes through WP:BEFORE. Personally, I would think moving to draft was the wiser and better course. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Overturn I don't see that a G11 is appropriate for an article from 2018 with several contributors - not to mention versions in 3 Wikipedia languages. No prejudice against an AFD. I'm curious at User:Seraphimblade's thought s though. Nfitz (talk) 05:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Overturn speedy - Special:Permalink/970261259 doesn't have a G11-level of promotion (nothing that can't be fixed by editing), and good sources exist [1] [2] [3]. Lev!vich 05:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC) Overturn the G11 - the article has issues, but they can either be resolved through editing, or a deletion discussion can take place. This article for instance shows there may be a discussion on him in Forbes (which isn't necessarily reliable.) SportingFlyer T·C 07:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC) Overturn the speedy. I respect that the article in its current form has stylistic issues, and notability may be suspect. One of the 4 sources no longer loads, and I (and I suspect most of us) are not equipped to judge the independence of 2 of the other sources. But given the article's history, the possibility of cultural bias, and specific concern about deletion by established users, let's hash it out at AFD (if needed) not just nuke it. G11 should be used for unambiguous situations, not where is smells a bit suspect but could use more eyeballs. Martinp (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC) Returning to reaffirm my overturn !vote, but no longer see any value in taking it to AFD. The sources identified by Levivich and SportingFlyer more than adequately address any potential notability concerns. Improving the article is up to editorial discretion; as I (and others) have said, the level of promotion is not up to G11 standards to nuke and completely start over. Martinp (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.